A friend of mine just asked me about this, so I have lots of thoughts about it. This may be deeper than you need, but here goes: My initial feelings about culture lead me to think of simply a “way of life” but if I think about it just a bit more, I notice that the word “way” connects to the idea of a path or perhaps even a journey – as in “let’s go this way” or “you go your way, and I’ll go mine.” Of course there is a collective nature to culture, so culture is like a collective journey or shared path. But I also get a feeling of boats on a river. Each boat has a certain level of individual freedom, but collectively they are all floating down the same river, so there is a sort of shared movement and common history despite whatever individual movements or relationships there might be among or between the individual boats. And of course rivers have branches, so some boats follow one branch while other boats follow other branches, so shared histories diverge and thus different cultures have very different characteristics.
Getting a bit more philosophical/esoteric, I also get an image of the individuals in a culture existing like cells in body. Different cells belong to different bodies, but each body defines the context – the role, function , or “meaning” – of the individual cells. The “essence” of a brain cell is different than the essence of a liver cell, and these differences in essence are correlated with their different roles – but these roles, in turn, spring from their function in the overall body – and this is what culture does; it is the larger “body” or context that defines a great deal of our essence as conscious individuals. Just as there is a degree of literal truth in the old saying “You are what you eat,” I sense a degree of literal truth in the idea that we are, to a significant degree, constituted by the culture in which we live. Our bodies are constituted by the materials we ingest, and our minds are constituted by the “psychical material” that we ingest, and the contextual meaning of this “mental food” comes from or culture. I want to emphasize the word ‘constituted’ because it is a lot stronger than just saying “influenced by” – it gets at the idea that our culture becomes part of our actual, deep, essence.
As for examples from my own life…well…since I am a philosopher, a great deal of my life IS thinking about stuff like this, so in a way, I have been speaking from my own life this whole time. For various reasons stemming from my interest in philosophy of mind, I do not believe that there are any such things as isolated (or isolatable) conscious individuals. A major part of the essence of a conscious individual is the context which provides the systems of meaning-relations that constitute the very nature of consciousness. Consciousness, I believe, is culturally constituted. Without culture there is no consciousness, and without consciousness, there are no selves, no egos. Without my consciousness there is no “me” as the individual that I am. But I know you are asking for something more personal, so let’s see…here is one concrete example: I was raised in a culture that values monogamy and devalues alternative lifestyles. For various reasons I have protested against this cultural mainstream. To borrow from my boats/river metaphor, you might say that my wife and I have spent a lot of time “swimming up stream” on this issue. Part of our role in life – one of the labels defining who we are as individuals is our membership in “alternative lifestyles”. But notice that this definition of who we are – this aspect of our identity – only has meaning in the context of a culture that values monogamy. Even tho we don’t flow with the majority, our lives are still to some extent defined by the flow of the majority – the overall flow of the culture that gives our status as “protesters” the very meaning that it has. We are who we are because of the culture, even when we don’t flow with the culture. It is part of our very essence as individuals, and we cannot abandon this essence no matter how hard we try (or at least we can’t abandon it without losing our selves in the process).
Source(s):
Sorry if I’ve rambled a bit. I’ve taken classes on hermanutics, semotics, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, etc. I don't consciously remember much of anything from these classes (I just don’t have a memory for details), but I guess I must be learning something along the way, cuz me can sure talk big words ;-) I guess you could say that the verbal diarrhea you are now experiencing is another example from my personal life. It is who I am. I am the crazy dude who spouts nonsense all over the place – the one you’d probably be embarrassed to bring home to meet your mom.
Answer:
President Harry S. Truman
Explanation:
I looked it up :)
The correct answer is A, as another factor that contributed to the United States decision to go to war against Spain in 1898 was US intention of protect its investments in Cuba.
The United States, which did not participate in the distribution of Africa or Asia and which, since the beginning of the 19th century, was pursuing an expansionist policy, set its initial expansion area in the Caribbean region and, to a lesser extent, in the Pacific, where his influence had already been felt in Hawaii and Japan. Both in one area and another were valuable Spanish colonies (Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean, the Philippines, the Carolinas and the Marianas and the Palau in the Pacific), which turned out to be easy prey, due to the strong political crisis that shook its metropolis since the end of the reign of Isabella II.
In the case of Cuba, its strong economic, agricultural and strategic value had already provoked numerous purchase offers for the island by several American presidents (John Quincy Adams, James Polk, James Buchanan and Ulysses S. Grant), that the government Spanish always rejected. Cuba was not only a matter of prestige for Spain, but it was one of its richest territories and the commercial traffic of its capital, Havana, was comparable to that recorded at the same time in Barcelona.
To this was added the birth of national feeling in Cuba, which since the Revolution of 1868 had been gaining adherents, the birth of a local bourgeoisie and the political and commercial limitations imposed by Spain that did not allow the free exchange of products, mainly sugar from cane, with the USA and other powers. The benefits of the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie of Cuba were seriously affected by Spanish legislation. The pressures of the Catalan textile bourgeoisie had led to the enactment of the Law of Commercial Relations with the Antilles (1882) and the Canovas Tariff (1891), which guaranteed the monopoly of the textile of Barcelona by taxing foreign products with tariffs of 40% and 46%, and forcing to absorb the production surpluses. The extension of these privileges in the Cuban market settled the industrialization of the Catalan region during the crisis of the sector in the 1880s, nullifying its competitiveness problems, at of the interests of Cuban industry, which was an essential stimulus of the revolt.
The escalation of misgivings between the governments of the US and Spain was increasing, while in the press of both countries there were strong smear campaigns against the adversary. In the midst of this scenario of tension, there was the collapse of the USS Maine, for which the USA blamed Spain. This ended by unleashing the war.
